it will never be less relevant

Everyone’s been going on about Padparadscha, and I’m definitely part of the crowd. I mean look at her, what’s not to love?

It’s been noted several times that the very reason she’s been banished- her ability to see only into the recent past- could actually be very useful if she actually has the ability to see further back into the past.

The thing is, we don’t actually know a lot about her. A Padparadscha’s color scheme could fit into either Pink or Yellow diamond’s court. (assuming that’s how it works at all). 

What we don’t know: how old she is, how long she served her diamond before she was banished, and we don’t know the exact circumstances around her banishment.

It could be that she was Pink Diamond’s sapphire who was unable to warn her that she was about to be shattered, but I don’t think that’s it. That seems like the kind of detail that would be noted in the records. After all, it wasn’t just one attendant that was missing, but all of them. 

Like Zircon said, it just doesn’t make sense. 

So while Yellow Diamond is willing to go forward with Steven’s less than stellar reenactment of Pink Diamond’s shattering

Blue Diamond isn’t having it. And while Yellow Diamond is a little too eager to help her sister move on, Blue knows something isn’t right. 

It may well be that before the trial, the diamonds were the only ones with access to all the relevant information. But it didn’t take Zircon long at all to put it all together. And we all know what she got for her trouble…

Assuming she was just poofed, you better believe she’s never bringing that up again. IF she isn’t banished outright for daring to accuse a diamond of murder.

I’m not sure if Yellow did it herself, at the very least it seems like she’s involved in a cover up of some kind. 

So what does this have to do with Padparadscha? 

From what we know of Homeworld, resources are in short supply. Even in the best of times sapphires were rare. Can they really afford to cast one off in times like this? Even if she is the result of being an era 2 sapphire, there has to be something more.

Here’s the thing: Like the diamonds or not, they’re smart. Flawed of course, but smart. It probably wouldn’t take too long for one of them to eventually realize that a sapphire with the ability to see into the past might actually come in pretty useful. 

Unless one of them had something to hide.

If Padparadscha had the misfortune of being part of Yellow’s court (either born into or brought into after Pink Diamond’s shattering), that certainly seems like grounds for banishment, or worse. 

Whether she has discovered the potential of her abilities or not is unknown at the moment, but it’s very possible that Yellow Diamond may have thought of them first. She does seem to be a military strategist type after all. 

Padparadscha never knew what hit her, until just a moment too late.

Go see Power Rangers!

Seriously, this movie is so entertaining. It’s a good old-fashioned hero origin story that focuses on the team building and personal growth of the characters! It keeps all of the good, nostalgic parts about Power Rangers but put so much heart into it. It very clearly is done in homage to and out of love for the original series and did not feel like a cash grab at all. They also didn’t go totally Michael Bay with it–it’s not a dark movie, just relevant and heartfelt. 

Also (kind of spoilers but it’s about characters and it’s a big reason you should see it) …

The Blue Ranger is black AND on the autism spectrum. And none of the others ever make a big deal about it! And it actually proves to be a strength, and he’s never made out to be less a part of the team because of how his mind works. 

The Yellow Ranger is queer! There’s a conversation around the fire where it becomes really clear, but her sexuality is also never made an issue of. She doesn’t have a romance (but neither do the het characters), but she’s allowed to be a hero and awesome as heck. Her development isn’t about her being lesbian (or another unspecified non-het sexuality), but she is, and the movie doesn’t avoid it!

ONLY ONE TEAM MEMBER IS WHITE. And yeah, it’s the Red Ranger, but he’s the only one. And there’s minor, minor flirting between him and the Pink Ranger but it never becomes A Thing. The entire team besides him is diverse across multiple intersections (whether socioeconomic status, race, sexuality, or ability). Also, the actors are in their very early twenties, not late twenties or thirties, so they passed as teenagers much more easily and their arcs felt so real. 

Basically, the way this film tackled diversity was the way we were taught to do it at the MadCap Retreat. Let diverse characters simply exist and no make every story be about their ~struggle~. But at the same time, don’t ignore the unique challenges that their intersections might bring to their everyday lives. 

There are places the film could improve. There was a bit too much ableist language (mostly “crazy” and “insane”–though thankfully none of this was ever directed at the Blue Ranger). But overall it was a nice, nostalgic, diverse update on a franchise I really enjoyed growing up. 

friendly reminder that your gender identity is completely independent of how you decide to present yourself and that being a femme transboy or butch transgirl doesn’t make you any less trans

it’s all about what you are comfortable with, your happiness is the most important thing and transitioning is already hard enough without feeling guilty for dressing a certain way

Hey Femme* Tumblr-

So I’m agender but also a broke bitch and it’s becoming increasingly apparent that my failure to preform to expected gender roles is getting in the way of getting a job because I live in religious fuckstick country**.  And my parents never tried to enforce gender in my house, which while great for my mental health, means I’m a bit up shit creek right now.  So if some of y’all could advise me on the following:

  • What the fuck is makeup and how do?
  • Moisturizing?? What is?
  • how does silhouette with clothing?
  • How to pretty lady in general seriously I know jack shit about this also I’m broke so maybe less expensive ways to do this?
  • thx

* this offer is open to everyone that has relevant experience, regardless of sex/gender/age whatever.  I’m basically a swamp goblin who has to fake being a human for a few hours a week.

** I realize that I shouldn’t have to change myself to suit other’s expectations but 1. suing for discrimination costs money, the thing I do not have and 2. I’m curious anyway.

Ode to Tessperado

Mirror, mirror on the wall
Who’s the most desperate of them all?
We thought the prize belong to Dumbelle
But then Tess rang that bell

We will not miss your salads and your silly pics
And the way you took the piss
Fat shaming people believing you were oh so smart
Guess what? You were less relevant than a fart

So take your dumb captions away
Cause you were never meant to stay
So farewell and goodbye,
I’d say it was a pleasure but mama taught me not to lie.

HAMILTON CAST SORTED INTO HOGWARTS HOUSES

Disclaimer: I’m sure this has been done somewhere already, so credit to whoever thought this up first! Also, while the collages are my own, all pictures are from Google Images, so credit to their owners. For each house, I found a list of their typical characteristics, and picked the three that most matched to each person.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON: Gryffindor; courage, determination, daring

Alexander was the definition of brave; he literally fought for everything he had. His courageous and daring personality catapulted him into a world he never dreamed of as a bastard child in the Caribbean. His determination paved the way for him to become one of the Founding Fathers of the US.

JOHN LAURENS: Gryffindor; courage, determination, chivalry

John was courageous in everything he did. His tragically short life’s mission was to lead an all black battalion. He fought for this in a time where it was unusual to say the least. A Southern gentleman, he was courteous and chivalrous to all he encountered. He died fighting for the country he loved, determined to gain equality and freedom for all people. 

HERCULES MULLIGAN: Ravenclaw; intelligence, creativity, originality

Hercules was a highly creative person, working with his hands and mind to create clothing for his clients. During the revolution, he successfully pretended to be on the side of the British officers he worked for while he gained valuable information to relay back to Washington. Keeping up this charade required a careful intelligence few possess. He was not afraid to rebel against the British, further proving his ability to go his own way.

MARQUIS DE LAFAYETTE: Hufflepuff; loyalty, hard working, tolerance

Lafayette was one of America’s most loyal allies. While France was his home, he had a special place in his heart for the US. He stayed loyal to General Washington his whole life, naming his first and only son after the future president. He worked tirelessly to help turn the tides of the Revolutionary War against the British, and then went back home to France to help lead the French Revolution. He fought for freedom for all, regardless of their personal trappings.

AARON BURR: Slytherin; traditionalism, preservation, ambition

Aaron took a traditional approach to his entire career, never taking a big risk or risking offending anyone. He fought to stay relevant in a rapidly growing and changing new form of government. He aspired for great things, but ironically, was held back by doing everything by the book. He was willing to adapt his personality to whatever the situation called for (see: talk less, smile more). He willingly switched political parties when he saw an opening in the Senate.

GEORGE WASHINGTON: Gryffindor; bravery, heroism, strength

George was perhaps one of the bravest men in the history of the US. In addition to leading countless battles, he ventured into new territory when he became the first president of the country. He was seen as a hero to Americans everywhere in his time, and now as well. His strength was most well exhibited in his ability to avoid being attached to one political party, and in staying neutral in conflicts between the British and the French. These decisions were not easy, but he was the right man at the right time.

THOMAS JEFFERSON: Ravenclaw; intelligence, creativity, individuality

Thomas embodied the word intelligence. A master of language, he wrote an estimated 19,000 letters in his life. He collected books, and his personal library had hundreds of works on all sorts of subjects. He had a wide variety of interests, ranging from law to science to the natural environment. He designed dozens of inventions, and was skilled in the field of architecture, displaying his creativity. He was a strong individual, with his own ideas and views that faltered for no one. 

ELIZA SCHUYLER: Hufflepuff; loyalty, patience, dedication

Eliza was one of the most loyal people you could ever find. Her husband was always away; at the beginning of their marriage, fighting in the war, and then working as a lawyer, and eventually in politics. Through these separations, she stuck by his side, raising their children. This not only exhibits an amazing amount of loyalty, but it proves her patience as well. She lived a long life, and dedicated it to preserving the legacy of her loved ones. She established an orphanage in honor of Alexander, fought for the end of slavery as Laurens would have, and worked to help establish the Washington monument.

ANGELICA SCHUYLER: Ravenclaw; wit, intuition, curiosity

Angelica was a witty woman in a time where many women didn’t even have access to basic education. She had a hunger for knowledge, and found very few people to be her intellectual match. Her curiosity was greatly heightened when the Revolutionary War began to surround her. She was very conscious of her place in the world, and despised the fact that her opportunities were limited by her gender. She fell for Alexander, but knew that he would not be a socially acceptable partner for her, and introduced him to her younger sister instead. Her intuition is best observed in these actions.

PEGGY SCHUYLER: Hufflepuff; kindness, enthusiasm, practical

Peggy is the most practical of the Schuyler Sisters in some senses. For example, she is the only one to fear the impending war, which would most definitely instill fear in the average person. She is portrayed as being enthusiastic, seen in her reactions when her sister Eliza becomes engaged to Alexander. Despite any fears she had for her sister about her future brother-in-law’s lower station, she is nothing but kind to him.

PHILIP HAMILTON: Gryffindor; bravery, willful, pride

Philip was extremely brave; he died protecting his father’s honor. He expressed fear before the duel, but carried on despite these feelings, displaying a sort of bravery rarely seen. One could argue his pride was the death of him. George Eacker’s insults ended his young life, when the whole issue could have been ended fairly easily. He was a willful man as well; his stubbornness against ending the feud when his father warned him further contributed to his untimely death.

JAMES MADISON: Hufflepuff; loyalty, hard working, practical

James preferred a practical sort of politics for the time, being a Southern Democratic-Republican. He, along with many others, felt that the country would not last with a radically different financial system. He was very close with Jefferson, forming a friendship that lasted 50 years. This sense of loyalty bonded them in matters both political and personal. He exhibited a strong work ethic throughout his career, contributing largely to the Federalist Papers, proposing the Virginia Plan, and even writing the Bill of Rights. 

a note on sp doms:

Something I’ve noticed in both myself and other sp doms is a tendency to dodge questions, but how and why are often due to their secondary variant.

Sp doms tend to dodge or misdirect questions because we are, by nature, more private (not the same as withdrawn). Many people are fooled since sp doms can come off charismatic and open at first, but in reality, when someone starts asking the wrong questions, there’s an obvious attitude shift.

Some of these are more prominent for spsx or spso, but I’ve seen both do any number of the following very often:

-we dodge questions and instead answer something that was never asked/is tangentially related. For example, someone asking “how was your day” and getting a description for a school project that’s due in two weeks, or someone asking if the sp dom is dating anyone, where the sp dom answers with something else they’ve been doing recently like “oh, well, I’ve been working a lot.”

-we ask “why do you care?” In response and expect you to answer, while we have no intention of answering your initial question

-giving non-answers, such as “dunno” or “who knows” to a question they clearly know the answer to, or “I don’t care” or “that’s not relevant” to something that’s definitely relevant. If pressed, they’ll often employ the above “why do you care”.

-turning the question around. “Well, what about you?” and just never giving their answer

-responding with “what do you think I think/feel about that?” and never confirming or denying, usually followed up with asking why the other person thinks they would think/feel that way (I see more often with spsx). For example, “how do you feel about failing that test” being answered with “what do you think I feel about failing that test”

-for si users, recalling a story (that is less related the higher their ne is) that sort of answers the question but still leaves it open to interpretation.

-just plain ignoring you, though for those with FE, it’s usually accompanied by a shrug or a “hmm.” Fi users on the other hand are less likely to concern themselves with acknowledging the other person has spoken, and may just LITERALLY ignore you without making an effort to acknowledge that you asked anything.

-giving you the “look”, as if they expect you to already know the answer and thus have no intention of giving it to you

-if they really don’t like you, they may just tell you to fuck off and/or mind your own business (uncommon with spso)

-weird choosiness about questions or having odd conceptions of personal information. They may feel perfectly fine giving you the details of their last five bowel movements or their extended medical history, but not what they do for a living or their hobbies.

anonymous asked:

Hi, I have a question : how do I know if I'm ace? For example if I have never kissed someone how do I know I don't like to kiss someone? Maybe is a stupid question but I'm new on this blog

hi anon,

“how do i know if i’m ____?” is a very common question that many people ask themself and / or others at one point or another and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. despite being a common question, the answer to that question isn’t a simple one and will differ from person to person because there is no one “true” answer, imho. the following is just my longwinded personal opinion.

before i attempt to answer your question

i’d like to point out that whether you like or don’t like kissing is not an indication of whether you’re ace or not. if you don’t like kissing then you simply don’t like kissing, which can be true for someone of any orientation. similarly, someone of any orientation can like kissing, including aces.

replace “kissing” with “sex” and the same is still true.

different people define asexuality differently because it means different things to different people, but imho asexuality is no different from other sexual orientations in that it’s descriptive of who someone is or isn’t (potentially) sexually attracted to and says nothing about the actions one finds enjoyable (or not). besides, a person doesn’t have to be sexually attracted to someone for kissing (or sex) to be enjoyable and a lack of sexual attraction is not required for kissing (or sex) to be something you don’t like.

while it’s certainly true that there are aces who do not like kissing and / or sex, for whom their experience with kissing and / or sex and disliking it (or worse) may be intrinsically connected to their asexuality / how they came to identify as ace, i hope that a lack of experience will not detour you from identifying as ace if you think that you might be ace. 

to answer your question (finally)

how do you know if you’re ace? the same way that i myself and countless others know that they’re ace: “ace”, “asexual”, “gray asexual”, “demisexual”, etc resonate with you and you feel comfortable enough describing yourself (or being referred to by others) as such enough to identify as such. in other words, you adopt that word / identity for yourself because you decide for yourself that that’s who you are.

there is nothing that qualifies you (or disqualifies you) as ace.
there is no surefire way to know whether or not you’re ace.
there is no way to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will never experience sexual attraction even if you have yet to experience it.

hell, sometimes it can be difficult to know whether or not you’ve ever experienced sexual attraction to some degree or in some way. sometimes it’s simply impossible to know for sure and yet other times you may not even be sure what the hell this “sexual attraction” even is.

and that’s okay.
all of that is okay.

every single one of us lives in the present, not the future nor the past. uncertainty is natural. you do not need to know anything for certain. furthermore, you do not need to know how you may feel in the future to identify as something now because it feels right to do so now. even if you were to identify as ace (or anything else) now, but in the future something were to change for you that makes ace (or anything else) less relevant or comfortable for you, that’s okay. use whatever word(s) / identity(/ies) feel right for you at the time and discard the ones that don’t. every experience you have (or don’t have) is valid regardless of whether that experience changes for you later in life. there’s absolutely no reason to hold one’s breath for future possibilities that may never come, simply roll with them if they do.

tl;dr because i’m longwinded as hell

if the thought that you might be ace resonates with you, why not try it on for size? in other words, try identifying as ace (even if only internally to yourself) and see how it makes you feel now. don’t worry about the future. if you happen to find that ace feels “right” or comfortable for you now, then hey! you might be ace. sometimes it’s not actually a matter of “knowing” whether you’re ace or not, but rather deciding if “ace” is meaningful as a word / identity for you. no one knows you better than you know yourself and sometimes it’s difficult to know anything for sure and that’s okay. just roll with your feelings, figure out things as you go and use whatever word(s) / identity(/ies) happen to feel right for you / be helpful. i’m pretty sure that that’s what all of us are doing. :)

On Supergirl Metas and Commentary...

I know that not everybody obsessively re-watches episodes and then looks up transcript text in order to write analysis/metas. (Yes, I do that. Judge me as ye will.) Part of the reason I do this, though, is because it’s easy for an initial impression of an episode to mess with my memory/perception of events, and when I write metas, I want to base them on facts (such as we have them from the show).

I’ve noticed that a lot of hate in the Karamel tag will make bold-face claims about the relationship yet fail to provide an accurate description of a situation or even a character quotation in context. Obviously, if you consider something bad or abusive, you’re probably not willing to re-watch the episode or go to its transcript for evidence… I suppose that makes sense. And when it comes to opinions, I guess it doesn’t really matter.

But when you write things like “the writers are promoting abusive relationships to young girls and teenagers,” is it too much to ask that you provide a little more context than your own opinion/conclusion for such a statement? You are literally claiming that this relationship is dangerous to young viewers–writers beware.

I’d like to know why–and not in general terms like “he never does what she says” or “he argues with her a lot” because neither statement is entirely true and both lack realistic context. In fact, both these example statements are the kind of thing one might have as an impression from an episode that isn’t entirely backed up by the events/quotations in that episode–but you feel very strongly about it, so the facts become less relevant.

Can you tell me what happened on the show (in context), when it happened (which episode), and why this specific instance is abusive in nature? Note the emphasis. Every relationship (romantic or otherwise) has conflicts, so a conflict in and of itself is not abusive.

beefing up for beginners

ten/rose. teen. ~8.7k (how???)
summary: rose and the doctor have been reunited across dimensions, but their relationship is lagging. the doctor finds something of rose’s that makes him fear it’s because he isn’t muscular enough for her. insecurity, folly, and (of course) ample miscommunication ensue.
warnings for: silliness.
thank you VERy much to @aroseofstone for the last minute beta :)
ao3

When the Doctor and Rose were reunited a few months ago – when she beat the infinitely stacked odds and fought her way back to him across universes – he had a different concept of what their relationship would be like.

He thought it was implicit that they were a little more than friends now. She had told him she loved him just before they were separated. The metacrisis event had given her quasi-immortality like he has; in one impossible accident all his concerns about mismatched lifespans had vanished. He had kissed her, when the dust had settled after the multiverse was safe and the Earth was returned to its rightful coordinates in the universe. They’d had an audience, too, for that kiss: everyone on board the TARDIS had ‘ooh’ed and cheered like schoolchildren. If it was obvious to all them, he thought it would be obvious to Rose, too.

But ever since then, he’s been perplexed by how slow their relationship is progressing. In fact, he’s convinced it isn’t progressing at all.

Keep reading

Stereotypes: The Female Perspective of being “too” within society

A few of you had messaged me with interest of reading my grad school research paper on gender stereotypes within Pitch Perfect, I’ve excluded some of it, but thought you may be interested in the rest :) Let me know what you think, I would love if we could discuss and would love to hear what you think!!!!


“Okay, so all a woman has to do is ignore society’s expectations, be ambitious,
sit at the table, work hard, and then it’s smooth sailing all the way.
What could possibly go wrong?”
– Sheryl Sandburg, Lean In (p. 39)

From a young age, we, as human beings, are taught how to eat, dress, ride a bike, communicate, and if we are really lucky – we are taught to love. This love still comes with innate beliefs educated, often subconsciously, by those who raise us, those we befriend, and those we come across in all stages of life. These ‘stereotypes’, often learned through behavior not words, is most often not even recognized as stereotypes because they often impact us in ways we do not consciously, or verbally, acknowledge.

Now, let’s try to break these stereotypes down even further and focus solely on the female population and what females are often inherently taught growing up within society. Habitually, these teachings come from our female parental figures, guardians, grandmothers, sisters, and friends who are teaching without the knowledge that they are helping to shape our beliefs and opinions for the rest of our female lives. These unconscious teachings include: the appropriate way to act around males, how to look and act like a lady (never less), how to speak our minds – but not too much, never too much; how to be the perfect student, the perfect wife, the perfect mother, the perfect employee. It does not matter if by doing these things we are living as our best selves, if we are being the polite, quiet female we have been conditioned to be, nothing else is of equal relevance. Though, these stereotypes are learned behaviors through our peers.  

Exploring the mass media example of the film Pitch Perfect, released in 2012, the then-Indie-now-major-blockbuster-success focuses on an all-female acapella college group trying to find their way. The film pushes the limits of group female interactions and stereotypes of how women ‘should’ behave within society.  The film could be argued for many different stereotypes as it is packed full of theories begging to be discussed. To name a few, we cross paths with the overweight female – who introduces herself as ‘Fat Amy’, when questioned why she calls herself that, she answers (jokingly?) “So twig bitches like you don’t do it behind my back.” There’s the openly gay member (who is also African-American) of the group who they chose to have play the utmost extreme version of being both a lesbian and a black female. There’s the very exaggerated sexual member of the group, the quiet Asian character, and the overly cocky male members of the rival group. We also get to enjoy the banter of a misogynist male and provocative female acapella announcer team. But nothing quite speaks the weight like the female and male stereotypical roles thrown to the audience throughout the film.  

The female lead character ‘Beca Mitchell’, played by Anna Kendrick, is an incoming freshman at Barden University. Though young, Beca is extremely driven, sarcastic, antisocial, independent, and confident in her goal of becoming a music producer and doesn’t plan to focus on much of anything else.

Pause.

A woman… independent and driven in a successful film? Yes, I know it’s a strange concept. But that can’t just be all she is, she obviously needs more ‘depth’.  

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

It's easy to assume Michael would be the one that likes setting things on fire - he is the demolition guy and all - but honestly he's in it more for the boom and destruction. But Gavin, now, Gavin loves loves loves fire. Carries a lighter or matches with him at all times, has to sometimes be dragged away from the aftermath of Michael's explosions because he won't stop staring at the flames. (Bc I noticed how much he likes starting fires in minecract lets plays idk)

Oh yep absolutely, there’s a reason the two of them are considered to be the most destructive pair in the FAHC; a love of flame and destruction which, worse than matching, is complementary to one another. Where Michael is looking for a particular outcome, for the demolition of a building or the devastation of enemy supplies, Gavin is chasing reactions; wants to see what will happen, which objects will burn, how people will react, how they will fall apart. They’ll both make a mess when they don’t need to, will happily take the absence of direct orders of prohibition as tacit permission to do as they please, but Michael has certainly got a better handle on more or less sticking to the objective, keeping the damage at least reasonably relevant. He’s frequently found himself reigning in Gavin, laughing more often than not but still standing in the way of the brunt of Gavin’s more senselessly reckless endeavours; the way he holds matches right up against priceless artworks, stacks of cash, the way he always gets too close to the fire, never waiting quite long enough to light the blaze, endlessly fascinated by the way it destroys. 

And Gavin is fascinated, can get lost in the flicker of light, the crackle and roar, the mindless hunger. There are moments when his interest is less harmless quirk than it is actual concern; the absent roll of a lighter between his fingers when they could all smell gas, the bonfire of a police safe-house bringing down weeks of unnecessary scrutiny, Gavin’s odd fascination with stealing away to compromise the fire doors any time they enter property owned by other crew’s, habitual preparation for an attack they’re not even planning yet. There’s a reason Gavin’s rarely in charge of starting any fire they need for a plan, a reason Geoff always counts heads before giving Michael the okay to bring down a building, a reason no amount of mocking or complaining stopped Jack from installing 14 different smoke detectors in and around Gavin’s penthouse bedroom. Gavin’s not a pyromaniac, he doesn’t mess up jobs, he’d never risk a fire that would get someone else in the crew hurt; he can actually control himself no matter what the others think. It’s just that he mostly chooses not to. 

Not a fan of wlw being told their ships are crackships because they’re not canon. There’s something so sneakily homophobic about it.

Wlw already have so little representation, it just doesn’t sit well with me that we ship people who aren’t canonically romantically involved (because writers are too scared to have more than one lgbt+ couple on their shows, but that’s a whole different topic I can’t even begin to tackle) and get told that those ships are a joke. That they’re less relevant and meaningful when the only reason they aren’t canon is because writers decided they wouldn’t be.

It’s oh so funny that we see potential for some amazing ships between actresses with great chemistry even tho we know it’ll never happen. HILARIOUS that we ship these ‘crackships’ and not the over abundance of other wlw relationships that we see on TV… oh wait

Miss me with that cloaked homophobia

If you compare the attention and screentime CW  gave to pasty patronizing white boy Man Hell versus the botched and rushed small amount of screentime Maggie got, it is painfully obvious why she is not a series regular in Season 3.

She never even felt like Regular in Season 2…

They never expected sanvers to be popular. They never expected viewers to care about those characters or that pairing or other things like Katie McGrath. They expected everybody to eat up the “destined”but actually toxic Man Hell romance.

Man Hell got all the screentime and focus being in every storyline. Meanwhile Maggie and Alex got like 1 minute scene per episode, most of which WERE CUT SHORT to fit the episode.  It was so ridiculous that they even managed to NOT have Alex be there when Kara, her own sister, needed her(ex: musical episode).

You know what that means? When cutting the episode to fit the timeslot there was an intentional decision to sacrifice one kind of scenes versus the other. 

Man Hell and his dramatic story was supposed to be the center of attention everyone is in awe of. Everything else was an afterthought to the point that they never even bothered to secure Floriana Lima for longer than one season and underused her even in the season she was a regular in.

But then something strange happened - people did not give a fuck about Man Hell and instead entire fandom fell in love with Alex’s storyline and her romance, as well as with Lena Luthor screentime. Alex Danvers coming out story, Sanvers romance and Lena Screentime were easily the best things about this season and all three were something CW network never expected to be popular to this level. The network did not care about the pairing for anything more than being ratings bait.

And now she and the whole pairing overall will have even less focus and screentime than before…

This is as relevant as ever.

anonymous asked:

Wot is with tv shows and the same-sex intimacy double standard this yr? Supergirl making Sanvers implicit, Shadowhunters doing a fade to black with their only gay couple while their het couples get sexualised scenes... it sucks :(

It’s even more ridiculous if you think they have no problem sexualizing f/f and m/m sexual encounters. They have an issue with showing romantic pairings having intimate, non-cut sex but they have no problem with scenes like Clarke/Niylah on the 100 and Sara/Random on Legends of Tomorrow.

What is concerning to me is that same-sex intimacy of occasional sex with less relevant characters is allowed but God help us having actual intimacy for relationships that are deeper and all about love and respect for one another.

Examples: Clexa love scene cut to where they lie onto the bed or having to wait after life for a hug, or Nyssa and Sara never having an actual love scene or simply intimate scene.

imagine your otp

cutthroatpixie said: I am trying to remember the first thing I ever said to you in person was it something dumb about your knee it was probably something dumb about your knee

kixboxer said: i don’t remember! i mean it probably was, but all i remember is i was sitting in the lobby of your hotel reading my kindle with LASER FOCUS and then some feet stopped next to mine. and then i’ve got nothing until we couldn’t find a real thai place for wizard reasons and i think the waiter thought we were on a date. i have anxiety coma’d the rest.

imagine your otp

viktor and yuuri meeting for the first time after chatting online for… years? (WHAT FANDOM WERE THEY IN? ICE SKATING FANDOM MAYBE?) and yuuri is so nervous to meet him (he is so boring? and plain? viktor will probably take one look at him and leave??) and so he’s waiting at viktor’s hotel lobby for viktor to show up (which, lbr, will be the swankiest place in town and he has spent the last ten minutes watching these Very Important People power-walking while talking into their bluetooth headsets, dressed in clothes that cost more than the entirety of yuuri’s apartment building, his heart in his throat, his anxiety up to the sky)

and he’s just staring at the black screen of his phone and thinking maybe he ought to just leave when all of a sudden he sees a pair of feet stop next to him, clad in the most hideously expensive shoes he has ever seen and—oh. it’s viktor. of course it is.

and so yuuri’s staring at him awkwardly and viktor looks strangely nervous.

“you’re shorter than i thought,” yuuri suddenly says.

at the same time, viktor blurts out: “i like your knees.”

yuuri stares at him. viktor blinks. “the first picture you ever sent of me had vicchan sitting on your lap,” he says quietly. “i saw your knees before i ever saw your face.” he pauses. “also, ouch.” and yuuri is bright red and viktor is still. staring. at. his. knees. 

and then they wind up going to a thai restaurant for drunken noodles where phichit is the waiter who knows they are on an awkward date

("no,” yuuri says, “we are just friends who, if anybody else asks, did not meet on the internet”)

and phichit tries really hard to lessen the awkwardness and also he is probably yuuri’s bff who told him “i totally ship you guys but just in case take him here for your date and if he winds up being a creeper i’ll knock him out with our wok”

(phichit does not knock him out with their wok)

(he knows true awkward internet love when he sees it)

“HTERE ISNO MANCE,” yuuri texts phichit drunkenly after he has walked viktor back to his hotel. drunk-texting is awfully hard, but yuuri has a lot of experience.

in response, phichit sends back a picture of the two of them giggling over pictures of their dogs, leaning over each other’s cell phones, long-empty plates still on the table (phichit has other priorities, okay)

“THERE IS SO MUCH MANCE,” he says, adding two entire lines of relevant emoji, from the smiling face with heart-eyes emoji to no less than five eggplant emoji. yuuri doesn’t deign to respond. it’s totally worth it.


WILL THIS BE A PROPER FIC SOMEDAY? THE WORLD MAY NEVER KNOW.

@kixboxer; @cutthroatpixie

Immortality doesn’t curb the agony, eh Chuck?

It’s something I’ve liked about TSW since I first started playing. Your character is immortal, but not traditionally so. A bee can die, he just can’t stay dead. This opens up a lot of interesting (and morbid) world building and character development opportunities.

A lot of human culture is influenced by our attitude towards death; anti-aging products, health food, religion & spirituality, various health and safety concerns – none of these would not be what they are if we weren’t continuously (if subtly) cognisant of our own ultimate demise. A traditionally immortal character is simply removed from these concerns. An unkillable character might be upset about outliving all his friends, or, if his friends are equally unkillable, he might feel out of place as the world moves on without him while he’s still there to see it. An unkillable character might even have some spiritual or existential concerns about never being able to attain an afterlife, but an afterlife isn’t all that applicable if death itself is not relevant. A religious bee who had previously enjoyed the promise of an Elysian afterlife wouldn’t just be barred from that afterlife, but would routinely get so close he can taste it, and then wrenched immediately away, often right back into whatever killed him in the first place.

Unlike the usual immortal characters, a bee still has to worry about all the things that could kill him. Illness is evidently less of a concern, and injuries presumably heal more quickly, yes, but things that can kill you – bullets and swords and falling rocks and speeding cars and angry zombie bears – are just as lethal, and just as painful.

You can die. And die, and die, endlessly. It’s not even like Wolverine, who can survive horrific injuries that would kill anyone else, because you can’t survive it, you get killed outright and then come back for another round. And it’s not tenacity or bravery, because you can’t help it. You just die. A lot. It plays better as helplessness than as courage.

And the game doesn’t gloss this over at all; this isn’t Fridge Horror, or me taking things to a morbid extreme because I’m a weirdo. This is the narrative impetuous behind Vali Omega, John taunts you with it in the Manufactory, and it’s touched on in Issue 7. And then that Halloween mission, the whole point of which is just how hard is is to stay dead no matter how much you want to, really hammers it home.

Start a Studyblr 2.0!!

What is a Studyblr?

A studyblr is more than your average tumblr blog for the sake of school- it’s a form of lifetime productivity. Having a studyblr is quite an interesting way to pursue your goals, no matter how different they might be from everybody else’s. It’s an amazing form of maintaining how well you want to do in all of your goals. There are different forms of a studyblr- like a langblr, appblr, and far more! Of course, you can classify yourself as more than one!

Why Make a Studyblr?

Due to the variety of motivation and aid the community as a whole offers, I’d highly recommend beginning a studyblr! You don’t have to feel obligated to post every day, but just bear in mind that the sole purpose is to increase your productivity. And possibly make a few friends who are just as like-minded as you!

Choosing Your Username

For me, choosing your username is one of the more difficult processes to go through. I had to think long and hard about mine, though I ended up randomizing with tumblr until I got something similar to dreamerdiary- dreamerdiarythings! You don’t have to have a vague blog name: it can be anything you want! Some people (for example, @fiona-studies and @emmastudies) have their first name as the starter and end with “studies”. Others (like @drinkwaterandbekind and @smoketexture) like to express a positive message or aesthetic through their name. Quite honestly, the choice is yours. :)

Decorating Your Blog

I’d definitely pursue a minimalistic theme for your studyblr, primarily because it prevents confusion and eye strains. Even so, the choice is yours. :D Also, feel free to reblog anything that catches your eye or inspires you- I make it a habit to try and reblog posts with less notes out of respect. However, I never let a useful masterpost or reference escape me.

Use Your Hashtags!

I do my very best to tag each and every single one of the posts I reblog with a relevant tag. Also, tag all of your original posts so that you can find them later or make edits as needed. Hashtags are also a massive help in obtaining more attention towards your posts, especially when you use more! I also make it a priority to occasionally browse the new studyblr hashtag- we were all there once!

Talk to People~

One of my favorite aspects of having a studyblr is knowing that I’m not alone. I have a couple of individuals whom I message often and they’re honestly quite lovely people. Having friends makes it all the more encouraging, and I would definitely recommend reaching out to people as you see fit!

anonymous asked:

It's very hard to deal with the regret that comes along with being diagnosed during the latter years of school life. I mean this in a way that if I had known I had adhd growing up, I could've addressed it instead of doing badly in school, you know? Like it seems small, but it impacted the way I was seen in high school (a slacker) and kept me from being accepted in a good college. And yk, like what if I could've been valedictorian or whatever, but I just didn't reach my full potential as a kid?

This is definitely something that I’ve struggled with. I was diagnosed at 18 and only started thinking I might have ADHD when I was 16. I spent a lot of time reflecting and re-evaluating things from my childhood that I regret and seeing them from a different light, and I felt cheated of so many opportunities because of it. For the longest time I just considered myself lazy and undisciplined because I couldn’t make myself study. My point with this is that you are definitely not alone in feeling this way; several articles discuss many of the things you describe (1, 2, 3). (Disclaimer: all of these articles discuss ADHD in women specifically. However, a lot of it revolves around regret and frustration because of undiagnosed ADHD in childhood and I believe many ADHDers can relate to it regardless of gender.)

Even after diagnosis it can be hard to let go of these things. Here’s what I try to tell myself: your life isn’t over. Whether you’re 18, 30, or 60, it’s never too late to start doing the things you want to do. Society will tell you the only path to success is by following the pattern of high school, college, potential grad studies, and then on to the workplace which is where you’ll spend the rest of your life. If you’re anything like me, just the thought of that terrifies you, but fortunately it couldn’t be less true. There are so many successful people who got started late, dropped out of college, or didn’t go to college at all. There is more than one way to get to where you want to be. 

I get how easy it is to get caught in the trap of asking “what if?” Here’s the thing though; it doesn’t matter what might have been, because it never happened. It’s not relevant. You might have been something else, but that won’t change the fact that that’s not who you are. There’s nothing wrong with imagination, but don’t waste your time mourning something that never existed. This sounds a little depressing, but I believe it can be positive too. Because now you can instead focus on what it is you want, and how you’re going to get there. The future is so much more interesting than the past, and we get to choose which one we focus on. So just keep asking yourself: what is it I want? How am I going to achieve it? What’s next for me? Now that you’re diagnosed you can actually recognize and start working on the things that trip you up, which will help you overcome them. 

I’m not going to lie; getting over regret and frustration is tough. But if nothing else, remember that we’re here for you and we believe in you. I also believe that humans don’t have a predetermined amount of potential. Our potential is infinite, and we’ll never know what we can be until we’ve become it. So the way I see it, there’s no way you didn’t reach your full potential, because that would imply that there’s a limit to what you can do, and that simply isn’t true. 

Stay strong,

-Becca